Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
University of Oregon Energy Project:Research, Education and
Alternative Energy
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/V/wvprjts.htm
www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/V/wvprjts.htm bbc.co.uk
bc.co.uk
2
University of Oregon Energy Project:Research, Education and Alternative Energy
Prepared by the Environmental Studies ServiceLearning Program Campus Energy Team
Team Members:Zachary Withers
Kathy YoungMaureen Sander
Megan Edgar
Project Manager:Sarah Mazze
Service Learning Program Coordinator:Steve Mital
June 2004
3
Executive Summary 6
Introduction 7
Campus Energy Profile 8Introduction 8Methodology 8University of Oregon Energy Use 9Energy Conservation 14Electric Providers 17Wind Power 21Conclusion 24
Education and Outreach Campaign 25Goals 25Methodology 25Implementation 26Conclusion 26
Survey Results 27Goals 27Methodology 27Results and Discussion 27Conclusion 31
Wind Power Campaign 33Goals 33Methodology 33Discussion 33Conclusion 34
Discussion 35Recommendations 35Conclusion 36
4
Works Cited 37
Appendices 39
Appendix A 39 Campus Energy Project Work Plan
Appendix B 43Campus Energy Project Data
Appendix C 50Interview Write-Ups
Appendix D 66Presentation ContentPresentation Script
Appendix E 76Public Speaking Course SyllabusQuiz
Appendix F 80Frequently Asked Questions
Appendix G 85Survey QuestionsSurvey Results
Appendix H 91Press ReleasePromotion in the Oregon Daily Emerald
Appendix I 94Campus Energy Tour ScriptCampus Energy Tour Pamphlet
Appendix J 100Wind Campaign ContentPresentation Script
5
Appendix K 110Education Campaign Number
6
Executive Summary
This project set out to raise awareness amongst 25% of the University of Oregon (UO)community about energy issues on campus. We aimed to connect students and staff to the issuesfacing the environment and our pocketbooks as a result of our energy consumption, as well asrevitalize conservation efforts across campus. To meet our objectives, the Campus Energy Teamcreated an education campaign and initiated the proposal for an increase in purchases ofalternative energy on campus.
After compiling an energy profile of the UO, we presented our findings to over 4,000 membersof the University community. Our presentation focused on the UO’s current energy use, theeconomic and environmental impacts of that use, conservation efforts, and alternative energysources. Of those reached by the education campaign, we performed 412 student surveys inorder to assess the effectiveness of the presentation. In analyzing this data, we found that oureducation campaign increased knowledge significantly, had a marginally significant effect onattitudes, yet showed little correlation with changes in behavior surrounding energy use (for furtheranalysis see pg. 23).
In researching the University of Oregon energy profile for 2003, we found that the University’selectric consumption was the third highest of Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB)’scustomers, with only Weyerhaeuser and Hynix purchasing greater amounts. That electrical useaccounted for only 22.5% of the University’s total energy consumption. The remaining 77.5% of theenergy used in 2003 consisted of natural gas used for heating and the generation of electricalpower (see pg. 6). The majority (48%) of electricity used on campus is purchased from EWEB inthe form of hydroelectric power. In 2003, the University consumed over 45 million kilowatt-hours (kWh) of electricity.
To moderate the high amounts of energy used on campus, we recommend continued andincreased conservation efforts across campus. As our survey shows, one brief presentation is notsufficient to change attitudes and behaviors. Yet we feel that an ongoing educationcampaign – focused on general energy issues – is essential for a growth in campus energyawareness.
While conserving energy is the most important factor in reducing environmental impacts fromenergy use, investment in alternative energies can also lessen our impact. Based on analysis ofour survey, University of Oregon students are willing to address the high levels of campus energyconsumption through the investment in and use of wind power on campus (see pg. 27). TheEnergy Team recommends purchasing wind energy from EWEB to power the Erb Memorial Union.This high-profile building represents 5% of the total campus energy use and is used primarily bystudents. For our goal to become a reality, two phases must occur. First, the EMU board mustagree to include wind power in their budget and then the Associated Students of the University ofOregon (ASUO) must accept the budget and increase student fees to support the extra cost. The
7
Campus Energy Team has initiated this process through a presentation to the ASUO senate onMay 26, 2004. We will continue to work for this conversion by the 2005/2006 academic year.
8
IntroductionBackground
Yearly, the University of Oregon consumes as much energy as 3,600 average Eugene residencesuse in a year (EWEB, 2004). While the United States relies on coal for the majority of its power, inthe Pacific Northwest and at the University of Oregon, we depend primarily on hydroelectricity.Although this source is largely considered a renewable and cleaner source of energy than coal, ithas many associated impacts for the region. To counter our vast use, many conservation effortshave taken place on campus both in physical applications and towards educating the community.Issues
On the University of Oregon campus, there exists a disconnect between some students,faculty, and staff, and the issues surrounding our energy needs. Many students come to theUniversity immediately from high school, with little applicable knowledge of energy costs andsources. By providing a framework that places the University community in context with the issuessurrounding our energy use, we hope to raise awareness of the monetary andenvironmental costs that result from our energy consumption.
Project Funding
The Campus Energy project was funded by a $7,500 grant from the local utility company, EugeneWater and Electric Board (EWEB) as well as matching funds from the University of Oregon. EWEBand the University invested in this project to promote awareness of energy issues and, ideally, adecrease in consumption.
Project Methodology
In order to achieve our goals, we engaged in various stages of research and education. Byfocusing our initial data collection on the United States, the Pacific Northwest, and the University’senergy trends, we were able to compare local and national energy sources and availablealternatives. We developed an energy profile detailing specifics of the University’s energy use,sources, conservation practices, and alternatives. Next, we created multiple outlets to educate thecampus community, including: a website, PowerPoint presentations (in classrooms and online),and an energy tour (both online and on Earth Day). In drawing attention to the connection betweenour use and the sources of our energy, we hoped to promote conservation practices amongindividuals and encourage the purchase of alternative energies on a campus wide level. We thendesigned a survey to evaluate the success of this campaign. We also set the process ofpurchasing 100% wind power for the Erb Memorial Union in motion. Lastly, we created a posterdisplaying significant project information and a final presentation about the accomplishments of ourproject.
9
Campus Energy ProfileIntroduction
To build an energy profile for the University of Oregon, we gathered information on the amount ofenergy the University uses, campus conservation efforts, current electricity sources and possiblealternatives for use on campus. While analyzing consumption and conservation provided us withan understanding of trends, considering the sources of this energy revealed subsequentenvironmental impacts. By investigating alternative energies and conservation practices, we werethen able to suggest methods for improvement. Ultimately, each section provides importantinformation that together forms a comprehensive energy profile as well as exposes areas forreducing the impact of the University’s use.
Methodology
Data collected for this profile came primarily from web-based searches, library research, and
interviews with campus faculty and Eugene Water and Electric Board (EWEB) experts. At apreliminary meeting at EWEB on January 15, 2004, Jim Maloney, Brian Hawley, and John Femalintroduced a broad range of information and ideas applicable to the Campus Energy Project.Throughout the months of January and February, we conducted further interviews and carried oute-mail correspondences with various experts in the field. Josh Ruddick, Utilities Analyst at theUniversity of Oregon power plant, provided raw data and insight into campus energy use andconservation. Other interviews included individual meetings with John Mitchell in Media Relationsat EWEB; Jim Maloney, EWEB’s Energy Resource Project Manager; and Jeff Kline, researchassociate with Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory (ESBL).
Online databases from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and EWEB provided a wealth ofinformation about local energy, while the Energy Information Administration (EIA) databasesupplied information about national energy use. Online documents with details on generaloperations for ESBL and Facilities Services as well as the Environmental Issues Committee’s (EIC)annual reports, news, and archival records provided further insight into the University’s energy use.
DataData is presented in four sections: University of Oregon Energy Use, Energy Conservation, ElectricProviders, and Wind Power.
10
University of Oregon Energy Use
Natural Gas
77.5%
Electricity 22.5%
University of Oregon Energy Use
Natural Gas
77.5%
Electricity 22.5%
University of Oregon Energy Use
The University Oregon spent over 4.4 million dollars on energy in 2003, averaging over$12,000 a day (Ruddick, 2004). At over 45 million kWh of electricity a year, this is equal to theamount of electricity required to power over 3,600 average Eugene residences for an entire year(EWEB, 2004). This electrical use makes the University Eugene Water and Electric Board's thirdlargest customer.
Energy Measurements
The basic unit used to measure electricity is the watt (W). For example, a 100-watt light bulbconsumes 100 watts of electricity at any given time. A kilowatt is equal to 1,000 watts. Whenmeasured over time, kilowatt-hours (kWh) are used. For example, ten 100-watt light bulbspowered for one hour consume one-kilowatt hour of electricity. For the purposes of this report,non-electrical forms of energy are converted to watts to allow for comparison.
In addition to electricity, the other primary form of energy used by the University of Oregon isnatural gas. Each form of energy requires different measurement tools – the existenceand monitoring of which regulate the data available for each form of energy.
Energy Form Measurement Standard Meter AvailabilityElectricity Kilowatt hour (kWh) Individual BuildingsNatural Gas British Thermal Unit (BTU) 10-12 total
Energy Breakdown
Of all the energy used by the University of Oregon in 2003, natural gas made up 77.5% of thepool while electricity made up the remaining 22.5% (Ruddick, 2004). Graph 1 displays this divide.Analyzing the use of each form explains the uneven distribution.
The University purchases natural gas from Northwest Natural and PG&E, which the campus powerplant uses to create steam. The steam is first pumped through electrical generators, and then
distributed to all campus buildings forheating. A portion is used to generateelectricity at the University power plant.
The University uses electricity for generalelectric needs such as lighting and computersas well as for cooling water for airconditioning. Three meters funnel electricalenergy to campus. In 2003, the Universitypurchased 87% of its electricity directly fromEWEB. The other 13% came from the steam-
Graph 1
11
University of Oregon Total kWh Used
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
kWh
KWh Purchased KWh Generated
University of Oregon Total kWh Used
0
10,000,000
20,000,000
30,000,000
40,000,000
50,000,000
60,000,000
70,000,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
kWh
KWh Purchased KWh Generated
powered generators at the University power plant (Ruddick, 2004). Each year, the percent ofelectricity generated on campus fluctuates in order to minimize costs. For example, when
natural gas prices are low and electricity prices are high, theUniversity saves money by generating its own electricity.
In 2003, natural gas cost the University 2.3 million dollars, whileelectricity cost 2.1 million (Ruddick, 2004). The cost ratio ofelectricity to natural gas fluctuates yearly depending not only onhow much the University uses, but also on the purchasingcost of each form of energy.
Electricity
More information exists for the use of electricity than for natural gas, primarily because ofelectrical meters on nearly every campus building. Due to this availability of information and theeven distribution of cost between natural gas and electricity, we focused our efforts on the electricalportion of the University’s energy use. For these reasons, as well as the cooperation and supportthat EWEB provides, the University of Oregon also concentrates on conserving electricity ratherthan natural gas.
Graph 2
Graph 2 displays the total electric use, as well as the breakdown between the electricity theUniversity purchased directly from EWEB and the electricity generated on campus. In 1993, theUniversity used 55.1 million kWh of electricity. Of this total, 41.7 million kWh were purchaseddirectly and 13.4 million kWh were generated at the University power plant. In contrast, in 2003,the University used 55.6 million kWh. Of this total, 46.5 million kWh were purchased directly andonly 9.1 million kWh were generated on campus. Over the last decade, the University generated
Did you know?The U of O uses overthree times as much
gas as electricity, yet in2003 the costs of eachwere almost identical.
12
an annual average of 13% of its electricity, with natural gas and electricity prices dictatingdifferences in source (Ruddick, 2004).
Obviously, yearly electricity use has fluctuated. This fluctuation is a result of many factorsincluding campus additions, student enrollment, and weather. Graph 3 displays the trends forkWh use, as well as total square feet and student population over the last decade.
Graph 3
Over the last decade, many new buildings and expansions were added to the University’sfacilities. For example, the additions of the Student Recreation Center and the Knight Law Centeraccount for the increase between 1998 and 1999. In 1993, the University had a total of almost 4.4million square feet, and by 2003, the total square footage was nearly 5.2. The percent increaseover this decade is almost 20% (UO, 2004).
Student enrollment at the University also increased over the last decade. Between 1993 and 1999,the student population oscillated, but increased minimally overall. Starting in 2000, the studentpopulation increased dramatically each year until it leveled off in 2003. In 1993, there were 16,593students at the University and by 2003 there were 20,033 students enrolled (UO, 2004). Theseadditions amount to a 20% increase in student enrollment over the last decade.
The kilowatt-hours used by the University each year varied even more dramatically. In 1993, theUniversity used 55.1 million kWh, but used only 55.6 million kWh in 2003. Although in 2000 therewere over 10% more kWh used than in 1993, by 2003 the percentage increase from 1993 droppedto less than 1% (Ruddick, 2004). This minimal increase in kWh usage occurred regardless of the20% increase in both square feet and student population. The decrease between 2000 and 2003is particularly noteworthy because during this time student enrollment increased.
University of Oregon kWh, Sq Ft and Population TrendsPercent Change from 1993
-15%
-10%
-5%
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
KWh Sq Ft. Student Population
13
The total kWh used by the University does not directly correlate with square footage or studentpopulation; other factors explain the trend. For example, even though the total square footageincreased, newer buildings were designed with higher energy efficiency standards. In addition, theUniversity worked to improve efficiency in older buildings. In regards to individuals’ impact,campaigns for students to reduce energy use counteracted a growth in that population.
As graph 4 illustrates, the total kWh use per student has decreased over the last decade. In 1993,per capita usage was approximately 3,321 kWh while in 2003 it was only 2,774 kWh. Although percapita usage fluctuated during this time, it decreased by 16% over the decade as a whole.Graph 4
University of Oregon kWh per Student
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
kWh
/Stu
den
t
Similarly, kWh use per square foot at the University experienced a downward trend as well. TheUniversity used 12.7 kWh per square foot in 1993 and only 10.7 kWh per square foot in 2003,representing a 15% reduction over the last decade.
14
Graph 5
University of Oregon kWh per Sq Ft.
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003
Year
kWh
/Sq
Ft
Discussion
The combination of these figures demonstrates that the University can reduce its energyuse even as it continues to expand. As the data shows, the minimal increase in kWhconsumption occurred regardless of increases in student population and total campus squarefootage. The University’s various conservation investments have helped make this possible.
15
Investments, Savings, & Returns
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2001-2003Investments
2001-2002Savings and
Returns
2001-2010Savings and
Returns
Do
llars
EWEB Credits Energy Bill Savings Investments
Investments, Savings, & Returns
0
200,000
400,000
600,000
800,000
1,000,000
1,200,000
2001-2003Investments
2001-2002Savings and
Returns
2001-2010Savings and
Returns
Do
lla
rs
EWEB Credits Energy Bill Savings Investments
Energy Conservation
Conservation projects are essential to reducing campus energy consumption. Recent projectsinclude upgrading lighting and fan timers, installing awnings and watt-stoppers, utilizing alternativeenergies, and improving building design standards. In addition, educational campaigns haveproved effective in initiating conservation practices among students and faculty.
Lighting and Fan Timer Upgrades
From 2001 to 2003, Facilities Services invested $539,688 to install fan timers across campus andupgrade existing t-12 magnetic fluorescent lights with electronic t-8 fluorescent bulbs. The followingtable gives the annual breakdown of investments and energy savings (monetary as well aselectrical). The graph shown below combines each year’s conservation investments byFacilities Services with both present and predicted future energy savings and returns.
2001 2002 2003
FacilitiesInvested $451,688 $8,000 – 10,000 $80,000
ECM* Return $341,627 $7,000 $62,000**
Energy Saved 1.7 Million kWh or$57,000
58,000 kWh or$2,000
390,000 kWh or$14,000
* Energy Conservation Measure (ECM) refers to EWEB’s monetary credit to the University for completingconservation projects.** Expected return to the UO. At the time of writing, EWEB was processing this information.[Ruddick, 2004]
Graph 6
16
Awnings
The installation of awnings on certain buildings reduces heating and cooling needs by blockingout high angled summer light yet still allowing in low angled winter light. Facilities Services investeda total of $31,877 to install awnings on the Volcanology Building, Johnson Hall, Hendricks Hall, andthe Music Building. Calculated energy savings for these projects are unavailable due to the inabilityto track heating and cooling savings in natural gas for individual buildings on campus.
Watt-Stoppers
The University of Oregon purchased 500 watt-stoppers at $50 apiece. Watt-stoppers are infraredmotion detectors connected to a power strip. The infrared sensorfocuses on a point in an office or classroom where occupants might be.When the occupant exits the room, the sensor powers down eachappliance connected to the power strip. EWEB has agreed toreimburse the University $20 to $25 per watt-stopper installed oncampus. So far, only 88 of 500 have been installed, due in part to alack of promotion and of receptivity. The watt-stoppers are not safe for
powering down computers, and as most people use only a computer and possibly a desk lamp intheir office, many people feel little need to use the device (Kline, 2004).
Solar Energy
Solar panels are located on the Erb Memorial Union (pictured to theright), Gerlinger Annex, and the Lillis Business Complex (picturedbelow). Campus solar power is used for two distinct purposes.The photovoltaic panels on the EMU and Lillis reduce reliance on gridpower. Consequently, the University saves money while reducingenvironmental impacts from traditional energy sources. The GerlingerAnnex solar water heating panels, on the other hand, connect to thebuilding’s water heating system, reducing the need to pump steam fromthe campus power plant to heat water for the building. An additionalbenefit of the solar water heater comes from decreased summer coolingneeds due to the lack of steam in the building. Both of these energysavings substantially reduce costs. Similar projects are planned forCondon and Chapman halls in the summer of 2004.
Building Design Standards
The University’s 2000 Sustainable Development Plan recognized the need to conserve energy indesigning new buildings. Consequently, the newest campus building additions and renovations
incorporate numerous sophisticated sustainabilitymeasures. At a cost of $41 million, the LillisBusiness Complex uses only 50% of the state requiredenergy consumption for a building its size. Lightsensors throughout this latest addition to campus
Of the 500 energysaving watt-
stoppers, only 88have been installed.
Photo taken by:Colin Quarterman
17
restrict the use of electric lighting when natural light is available. Solar panels embedded in thesouth atrium windows and on the roof produce 5% of the building’s total energy use (LundquistCollege of Business, 2004).
Educational Campaigns
In addition to physical applications and design standards, the University engages in educational
campaigns to boost awareness and support for energy conservation on campus. In the2001/2002 academic year, Facilities Services contracted Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory(ESBL) to research and monitor a conservation competition between dormitories.
ESBL hired three students to educate dorm residents on ways to conserve energy in theirbuildings. The selected students distributed flyers and light switch reminders and held meetingswith Resident Assistants. Incentives were offered to the dorm that conserved the mostelectricity. This awareness campaign not only saved electricity, but also initiated conservationpractices in newer students at the University. Although the exact electrical savings have yet to becalculated, Jeff Kline with ESBL states that a sizable reduction occurred (Kline, 2004).
Discussion
By no means do the previous examples represent all conservation efforts made by the University.Numerous campus groups are involved with conservation projects, and in its history, multitudes ofbuilding renovations, new constructions, facilities upgrades, awareness campaigns, and energyresearch has occurred on campus. These illustrations simply emphasize specific accomplishmentsand provide examples of previous successful conservation measures.
18
Breakdown of EWEB’s power purchases, which make up 87% of the UO electricprofile. Data for graph provided by Eugene Water and Electric Board.
Electric Providers
In the United States, power generated from coal accounts for about 52% of the electricity profile,while hydroelectric power makes up 6% (EIA, 2004). Most of this hydroelectric generation occurs inthe Pacific Northwest, from powerhouses such as Grand Coulee, Chief Joseph, or Bonneville
dams. Hydroelectricgenerationdominates theNorthwest powerpool. TheBonneville PowerAdministration(BPA) owns anddistributes much ofthis power amongvarious residences,businesses,facilities and otherutilities such as the
Eugene Water andElectric Board
(EWEB).
Power purchased from the BPA makes up 61.5% of EWEB’s electric profile (EWEB, 2004). EWEBalso purchases power from Grant County Public Utilities Distributor, which supplies additionalhydropower from its two dams: Wanapum and Priest Rapids. Because of the Columbia RiverTreaty (1964), EWEB also receives a small portion of power from the Mica dam in BritishColumbia. This treaty detailed an agreement between the United States and Canada in which theU.S. would purchase a certain amount of Canadian power if Canada would build three dams — twolarge storage dams and one dam for power generation (the Mica dam).
EWEB owns and operates several dams, and partially owns a cogeneration plant and wind powerplant. The rest of the power purchased by EWEB is purchased daily and can vary dependingupon price and availability. The University of Oregon purchases most of its electricity from EWEB,making it EWEB’s third largest customer. As mentioned earlier, the University supplies an averageof 13% of its own electricity, which Facilities Services generates as a by-product of its natural gas-powered steam plant (Ruddick, 2004).
EWEB-Owned Generated Power BPA-Owned Generated PowerHydroelectric Generation 76% Hydroelectric Generation 67%Natural Gas/Cogeneration 20.5% Nuclear Generation 10%Wind Generation 3.5% Firm Contracts and Other 23%
EWEB Power PurchasesBonneville PowerAdministration (61.5%)EWEB-Owned Generated(13%)Grant County PUD (3.6%)
Columbia Storage PowerExchange (0.9%)Other Purchases (20.9%)
EWEB Power PurchasesBonneville PowerAdministration (61.5%)EWEB-Owned Generated(13%)Grant County PUD (3.6%)
Columbia Storage PowerExchange (0.9%)Other Purchases (20.9%)
Graph 7
19
Natural Gas hasalready reached itspeak production.
U of O Electricity Profile
Hydro (48% )
N atu ra l Gas (15% )
Nuc lear (5% )
W ind (0 .5% )
O the r (30% )
University of Oregon Electricity Profile
In 2003, hydroelectricpower provided themajority of theUniversity’s energy.Natural gas suppliedabout 15%, nuclear 5%,and wind made up lessthan 0.5% (BPA, EWEB,& Ruddick, 2004). Theadditional 30% of theenergy used by theUniversity is undefined,
because it is purchased from day to day, depending upon the cost and availability of electricity.This portion consists of numerous forms of energy, including coal. Each source of energy has bothbenefits and drawbacks, explained briefly below.
Natural Gas
The Pacific Northwest receives almost all of its gas from Canada, transported by pipelines ownedby Northwest and PG & E from the Western Canadian Sedimentary Basin located in Alberta.Natural gas burns cleaner than any other hydrocarbon fuel. Unlike coal, it produces very littlesulfur dioxide or other air contaminants and produces very little solid waste. Like coal, however, itis cost competitive. However, natural gas has its drawbacks. The flammability of the gasmakes it susceptible to hazards in extraction or production, and it is a finite natural
resource. In addition, gas consumption continues to rise. According tothe Energy Information Administration, natural gas consumption rose by21% from 1990 to 2002. Production peaked in the 1970’s and by themid-1980s, consumption rose above production, causing an increase inimports to meet demand. The transportation of natural gas has
limitations, however, because the gas remains in vapor form. It cannot be transported far as such,and turning it into a liquid can prove quite expensive. Because of these transportation restrictions,the U.S. imports very little natural gas, limiting supply.
Hydroelectricity
Hydroelectricity dominates the University ofOregon’s electricity pool. Often considered a“renewable” energy, hydroelectricgeneration emits no air pollution andhas an unlimited power source (water),which does not deplete during generation. Inaddition, hydroelectric plants have a longgeneration life – generally over 50 years.
http://www.nwp.usace.army.mil/op/V/wvprjts.htm
Graph 8
20
Did you know?According to the Institute forEnergy and Environmental
Research, if uranium dioxideleaks into the ground water
supply, it will react bycreating a very toxic
hydrofluoric acid that cancause serious risks to health.
Hydroelectricity makesup about 66% of the
Pacific Northwestelectricity profile.
Power generation represents only one motive for building dams: flood control is another. Thisresults in faster flowing water downstream, which carves deep into the riverbed while blockingsediment upstream. These factors cause disruptions innutrient availability and increased sediment loads (turbidity)of the waterway. Lower levels of nutrients decrease foodsources while higher levels of nutrients increasesusceptibility of algae bloom. The latter affects spawningpractices by decreasing the diversity of the river channel. Fish, particularly salmon, need areas ofboth slower moving and faster moving water. Dams stabilize the flow rate in waterways. Thechanges in the river channel cause fluctuations in water temperatures, which affect oxygenabsorption and increase stress on salmon populations. Flood control also detrimentally affectsflood dependent ecosystems: decreased flooding prohibits nutrient and sediment replenishment ofthe floodplain, decreasing biodiversity of riparian vegetation.
Dams additionally block passage along the waterway, making it difficult for salmon to returnupstream for spawning. This has greatly decreased salmon populations. Fish ladders can helpsalmon passage, although few dams have them.
Salmon not only have an impact on the economy of the Pacific Northwest, they also are a keycomponent of the local ecosystem. Over the past 100 years, the reduction in salmon populationshas diverted huge amounts of nutrients away from rivers. Most salmon populations areanadromous, meaning they spawn in small freshwater streams and eventually work their way tothe ocean, where they spend the majority of their lives. Over the years, the fish grow from feedingin the nutrient-rich ocean and in the last leg of their lives, return to their native stream tospawn again. After spawning, the fish die, depositing the nutrients carried from the ocean.According to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, only 3% of the nutrients oncetransported by anadromous fish currently reach these rivers.
Nuclear
Nuclear power makes up about 5% of the University of Oregon electric profile. This comes fromthe Columbia Generating System, a nuclear plant located in southeast Washington. Oftenconsidered a clean form of energy, nuclear power does not emit hazardous gases intothe atmosphere and unlike wind, solar, or hydropower, it does not rely upon weather conditions forgeneration.
Uranium acts as the primary fuel source for the ColumbiaGenerating System. Power generation produces aradioactive by-product of uranium dioxide, which has thecapacity to cause kidney toxicity or even death wheninhaled or ingested. Immediate contact with the substancecan cause cancer. This waste is temporarily stored until itcan be moved to the national repository at Yucca Mountain(about 100 miles northwest of Las Vegas, Nevada). YuccaMountain may only provide a short-term answer to a long-term problem. Removing waste from nuclear power plants
21
creates room for more production, rather than providing incentives for more efficient production.Also, the transportation of the uranium dioxide may be subject to truck, train, or barge accidents,which would pose an immediate danger to the health of surrounding populations.Coal
About 30% of the University’s electricity profile is undefined, because EWEB and the BPApurchase a portion of their energy day to day from a variety of utilities and wholesale energybrokers. The supplemental energy purchased depends on the amount or cost of what is available.In the Pacific Northwest, 20% of electricity comes from coal, meaning that the University couldreceive a portion of its electricity from this source. Coal power is economical, but when burned,is the highest producer of toxic air pollution in the world, causing acid rain andsignificantly influencing global climate change.
Discussion
While all these forms of energy generation have both beneficial and detrimental attributes,ultimately cost competitiveness and locality define the energy market. Most of these energysources, such as hydroelectricity or natural gas, are routinely touted as “clean” or even“renewable.” However, these labels may encourage false and idealized perceptions. Instead, wefeel that focus should lie in a search for cleaner and more efficient alternative sources of energy,such as wind or solar power, and in improving the competitiveness of these sources in the energymarket
22
www.east-haven.k12.ct.us
Wind Power
Wind power is truly a clean, renewable energy, and its use on campus can significantly reducethe ecological footprint caused by the University’s energy use. To understand the implications ofpromoting this energy on campus, a basic understanding of this resource is essential.
Background
The concept of harnessing wind to generate power can be tracedback to the 7th century AD, while the first documented Dutchwindmill dates back to 1180. By 1850, wind supplied 90% of thepower used in Dutch industry, and in the U.S., over 6 million windmills were visible on the American landscapes by the early 20th
century – pumping water and powering farms. However, whenother technologies became readily available, cheaper and moreconvenient sources such as coal and oil displaced the use of windfrom America’s energy equation. By the late 1970s, 6 millionwindmills became a mere 150,000 (Gipe, 1995).
The 1973 oil embargo and the Three Mile Island incident in 1979 prompted a revival of wind powerresearch. Once reestablished as a viable alternative, wind power progressed faster thanany other energy technology. By the late 1980s, over 70 large wind farms in six states wereproducing commercial quantities of power – less than a decade after intensive research began.The majority of these farms are in California, where 16,000 operating wind turbines produced 3.5billion Kilowatt-hours of electricity in 1994 (Gipe, 1995).
1180 First known wind mill1900-1950 Early wind power in the United States1960-1970 Coal and oil become mainstream sources of energy1973 OPEC oil embargo raises prices of this inexpensive source1979 Three Mile Island incident prompts fear of nuclear power1979 Federal funding for wind power research and development1980s Technological advances in turbine design and efficiency1994 Cost of wind down to $0.05 per Kilowatt Hour
An Energy Information Administration study shows that enough wind blows through the UnitedStates to produce up to two times more electricity than current U.S. generating capacity (EIA,2004). While the likelihood of harnessing all of that unrealized power is impractical, the estimatedisplays the boundless potential of wind power.
23
www.solarenergy.com
Modern wind turbines can generate electricity at up to a 30% efficiency rate – rivaling conventionalsources of energy (Gipe, 1995). In addition, technological advancements and designmodernization have reduced capital and operating costs of wind energy production, resulting in thedecreased price of wind power. Since 1994, wind power has averaged $0.05 per Kilowatt-hour inCalifornia – competitive even in today’s energy market (EIA, 2004).
The Science
Wind is a form of solar energy that results from the uneven heating of the atmosphere, surfaceirregularity, and the rotation of the earth. Wind hits the blades of a turbine, resulting in spinning.This spinning converts the solar energy that is stored in wind into kinetic energy, which turns anaxle, which powers a pump, runs a mill, or performs some other type of function. The amount ofpower that is converted in this way depends on the length of the blades and wind speed. Thus,both design and geographic patterns must be considered when turbines are constructed.
Updated design and experience in both operationand positioning have greatly improved the scienceof wind power production. Technologicalinnovations such as improved blades, variable-speed generation, simplified mechanisms, andmodern controls have improved the scope andpossibility of this renewable resource (Gipe, 1995).Despite economic and technological prosperity,wind power still makes up only a minor percentageof the country’s energy budget.
Costs
The utilization of wind as a resource has stagnated because many elements are needed forsuccessful wind power generation. Barriers hindering integration of wind into the electric utilitysystem include the low cost of electricity from natural-gas-fired power plants, the intermittent natureof wind, the lack of data on viable wind resource areas, the distance of wind resources fromdemand centers, and the high financing cost of wind energy projects. Environmental impacts ofwind power generation include degradation of plant and animal life due to disturbed habitat (aresult of the extensive land needed to implement enough turbines to produce abundant power) aswell as what the industry has dubbed “the bird problem”.
Location An average wind speed of 15 miles per hour is needed tosustain a wind farm. The average wind speed in Eugene is 2.5miles per hour.
Compatibility Issues of migrating birds and scenic beauty often suspend thebuilding of wind turbines.
Storage Wind varies, and so do energy needs. Effective ways to dealwith surplus and shortage are insufficient at best
24
The Bird Controversy
One of the most controversial aspects of wind power is the impact on birds. In the late 1980s, theCalifornia Energy Commission reported the deaths of 160 birds due to collisions with wind turbines,including the cherished golden eagle. Since the emergence of the immense wind project inAltamont Pass, California, estimated tens of thousands of birds have died. Now, manyenvironmentalists who supported wind power are condemning it.
However, a study completed in 2001 by the National Wind CoordinatingCommittee argues for the insignificance of the problem. The study,which scientifically observed numerous human-made structures, foundthat wind turbines in the U.S. are responsible for 10,000 to 40,000 birddeaths per year. However, vehicles, buildings, and power lines areresponsible for 60 to 80 million, 98 to 980 million, and up to 174 million,respectively. In addition, the National Audubon Society estimates thatupwards of 100 million bird fatalities are the result of house cats everyyear in the United States (NWCC, 2001).
In addition, advancements in wind technology have also lowered the bird fatality rate per turbine,so that the original numbers at Altamont Pass will not be repeated. For example, the Foote CreekRim project in Wyoming, which is partially owned by EWEB, placed turbines in a particular locationand direction to avoid interference with flight patterns. In addition, new designs disallow birds toperch or nest on turbines, which has also lowered bird fatality rates (EWEB, 2004).
Benefits
Wind power yields zero-emissions, offsetting air pollution that is otherwise generated byconventional power plants. In addition, while migrating birds may not mix well with spinningturbines, most other animals do.
Clean Wind power offers a non-polluting alternative to fossil fuels: aservice to the air and sky.
Efficient Advanced technology allows for efficiency comparable, if notsuperior, to conventional sources.
Affordable The cost of wind is now competitive with popular polluters suchas oil and natural gas.
Discussion
The University of Oregon Campus Environmental Policy states “the University will explore theapplication of developing technologies for energy systems and use of resources, as well as thepotential for use of renewable energy resources.” Considering the application of wind power oncampus may be a viable means for the University of Oregon to fulfill this assertion.
mooseyscountrygarden.com
25
Conclusion
Despite recent growth in square footage and student population, the University of Oregon has
shown its ability to reduce overall energy consumption. Nonetheless, future environmentalconsequences of this consumption may be considerable. Conservationinvestments reduce the University’s ecological footprint and save money. In addition toreducing its energy use, the University has implemented the use of some alternative energysources, thus reducing our reliance on conventional resources. Taking the size of campus intoaccount, investments in conservation and alternative energy make a substantial impact. However,many opportunities for future improvements exist in all areas of energy use: namely,the utilization of clean, renewable energy sources such as wind or solar power.
26
Education and Outreach CampaignGoals
The purpose of the education and outreach campaign was to raise awareness of energyissues and promote conservation practices on campus. The project was established with a goal ofreaching 25% of the campus community, which as of winter term 2004 included 19,450 students.We therefore aimed to reach about 5,000 people. As of the writing of this report, we reached4,131 people, coming close to our initial goal.
Methodology
We used multiple methods to contact the sizable number of people that our goal dictated. The
majority were educated through in-class or faculty and staff presentations, while a campusenergy tour and project website reached the remainder. The presentations, although fulfillingthe majority of the goal, represented a condensed version of the energy profile data. Thosereached through the energy tour and website had access to a greater wealth of information.
ImplementationPresentation
After compiling data, we arranged notable information into a ten minute PowerPoint presentation.The goal of the presentation was to share a University energy profile with audiences. Thepresentation includes information on use, sources, conservation efforts, and investments in
alternative energy. Finally, itbriefly discusses waysindividuals can help to conserveenergy both on and off campus.The Project Manager scheduledpresentations by sending lettersto faculty members and usingthe website and Oregon DailyEmerald article for publicity.
With a goal of reaching about 5,000 people, five additional students were recruited to helpgive the presentation throughout spring term of 2004. The role of the Energy Team in this publicspeaking class included supplying the presentation slides, script, a quiz, and a list of frequentlyasked questions and answers, as well as acting as mentors. As a team of nine presenters, wewere able to reach 3,724 people using this method. For a presentation spreadsheet and publicspeaking class information, see appendices D and E.
Campus Energy Tour
A tour of energy-saving projects on campus emphasized conservation and alternative energyefforts made by the University. Highlighted on the tour were seven stops: awnings on the
Photo taken by: Steve Mital
27
Volcanology building, upgraded lighting systems in Pacific hall, Energy Studies in BuildingsLaboratory (ESBL), the Lillis Business Complex, a solar water heater on Gerlinger Annex, theStudent Recreation Center, and solar panels on the Erb Memorial Union. Sites were chosenbased upon exhibition of noteworthy conservation or alternative energy projects.
Two tours visited these sites on Earth Day, April 22, 2004.Three people attended the morning tour, and three attended theafternoon tour. Publicity consisted of a front-page article in theOregon Daily Emerald on April 20, initiated by a press releasesent to the editors about the Campus Energy Project. Flyersposted around the EMU the day before the tour andEnvironmental Studies and Geography undergraduate emaillist-serves assisted in promoting the tour.
In addition to the physical tours, a self-guiding pamphlet and avirtual tour are available. Supplementing the pamphlet is a script for the tour; available so otherscan lead a similar tour in the future. For press release, newspaper article, self-guiding pamphletand script, see appendices H and I.
Website
The purpose of the website is to supply information about the goals of the Campus EnergyProject, provide data from our research, and furnish links to useful information. During winter term,the site consisted of campus energy profile data, a glossary of energy terms and an energy IQquiz. Throughout spring term, a continuously updated current events page described projectactivities, and in April, we added the virtual energy tour. As the wind campaign began, a "How toHelp" page and letter writing campaign promoted community involvement. Added with the help ofUO media services, a virtual “Virage” presentation allows individuals to view the educationalpresentation from their computers. With help from energy tour promotion (including Oregon DailyEmerald article and mass e-mails), a link from the Service Learning Program home page, andpromotion during PowerPoint presentations, the website received 379 hits as of May 31, 2004.
Conclusion
Judging purely by the numbers reached, the education and outreach campaign appear
successful. However, numbers alone do not indicate true project success. The presentationitself stimulated different responses from each class, often depending both on the subject of thecourse and the motivation or interest of the professor. Often, when the professor expressedinterest in the project and encouraged questions, the class appeared more attentive. Timeconstraints also limited the availability of a question and answer period, detracting from thepresentation. In addition, it is difficult to gauge the success of the website and energy tour.Consequently, a determination of the effectiveness of the campaign requires further analysis.
Photo taken by: Steve Mital
28
412 surveys werecompleted; 217
before and 195 afterthe presentation.
Survey ResultsGoals
A phone survey not only measured the effectiveness of our education and outreach campaign,but also provided general information about students. By conducting surveys both before and afterparticipants had seen the education presentation, we determined changes in energy knowledge,conservation attitudes, and behaviors. By asking demographic questions we analyzed other trendsamong the student population. Gathering a statistically significant number required us tosurvey 354 people both before and after viewing the presentation.
Methodology
We created twenty-four survey questions which were then approved by the University’s HumanSubjects Review. The first question addressed how many times the participant had seen thepresentation, while subsequent questions dealt with individual knowledge, values, and behaviorsregarding energy issues. The remaining questions functioned to provide basic demographicinformation about the individual surveyed. For survey questions and script, see appendix G.
After acquiring phone lists for scheduled classes, calls were made both before and after thescheduled presentation. We used the same lists to call students both before and after thepresentation, so some respondents were surveyed twice. Complications included missing orwrong numbers and unavailability. Given these unexpected obstacles and our limited personnel,we reduced our goal from 354 surveys to 200 surveys both before and after the presentation.Although we reduced number of surveys performed, 200 surveys still provided us with a 93%confidence interval. All data was entered into File Maker Pro, which allows for easy dataanalysis.
Results and Discussion
After completing the survey, we recorded and analyzed responses. We completed a total of 412surveys – 217 before the presentation and 195 after the presentation –both figures close to our revised goal of 200. The survey analysisfocused on four categories: demographics, knowledge, behaviors, andattitudes. Using the demographic information gathered, we analyzedother trends in order to better understand the campus community anddevelop recommendations for the future.
Demographics
We gathered Demographic information such as gender, age, housing, and financialresponsibilities. Of the total surveyed, 56.3% were female and 43.7% were male. This is slightlydifferent than the University average of 53% female and 47% male. The median age of
29
Percent of Correct Survey Answers
0
10
20
30
40
5060
70
80
90
100
1 2 3 4 5 AverageQuestion (See Below)
Per
cen
t
Before
After
participants was 21, whereas the average age at the University is 22. Along with age, we alsoconsidered year in school.
Graph 9 Graph 9 displays the year in school of allsurvey participants. The majority wereupper-class, undergraduate students. Thedemographics of those we surveyed arerelated to the makeup of classes thatallowed us to give the presentation.
The remainder of the survey demographicresults are available in appendix G.
Knowledge
The first section of the survey consisted of questions regarding knowledge of energy use. Each of
these questions addressed information presented in the education presentation. Comparingthe responses of participants both before and after seeing the presentation provides ameasurement of the change in knowledge.
Graph 10
Questions:1. Does the majority of US electricity come from nuclear, coal, hydroelectric sources? (Correct Answer: Coal)
Year in School of Participants
Freshman 16%
Sophomore 15%
Junior 29%
Senior 39%
Graduate Student 1%
30
2. Does the majority of the University of Oregon's electricity come from nuclear, coal, or hydroelectric sources?(Correct Answer: Hydroelectric)
3. Has the University of Oregon’s per capita electricity use increased, decreased, or stayed the same over thelast decade? (Correct Answer: Decreased)
4. What forms of alternative energy has the U of O invested in: none, wind, solar, or both wind and solarpower? (Correct Answer: Both)
5. Does it damage a computer to turn it off and on for the purpose of saving energy? (Correct Answer: No)
Graph 10 displays the results of those answering correctly both before and after the presentationfor five of the knowledge questions. For all of the questions, more participants knew the correctanswer after seeing the education presentation. The average correct responses increased by25.8% - from 45.7% before to 71.5 % after. This was the largest percentage increase of anyof the survey categories.
Questions 1 and 5 displayed only slight improvements. These questions related to general energyinformation participants could have obtained from numerous sources. Thus, our presentationwould be influenced by what participants already knew. The questions with the most significantimprovements – three and four – related specifically to information about the University ofOregon. It is likely that our presentation had been the only source of this information, allowing for agreater increase in correct responses.
Attitudes
The next series of questions related to the participants' attitude regarding energy consumption.One attitude question asked where the participant was more energy conscious: at home, at theuniversity, or about the same. As predicted, most people were more energy conscious athome rather than at the University both before and after the survey, 72.8% versus 70.8%,respectively. Surprisingly, fewer participants were more energy conscious at the University ratherthan at home after the presentation, 9.7% before as compared to 2.6% after. However, there wasan increase in those who were equally energy conscious. Before the presentation, only 17.5%answered they had the same consciousness at home and at the University, whereas after, 26.7%said they had the same level of energy consciousness in both places. These figures suggest thatthe presentation increased awareness at home for those who previously were most conscious atthe University.
Two other questions that relate to attitudes about energy are displayed in graphs 11 and 12.These graphs address the personal value placed on knowing one's level of electricity use andsource of that electricity.
Each question displayed similar results: the overall importance of knowing the amount and sourceof electricity increased slightly. In graph three, the average response increased from 3.61 to 3.78.This change has a 94.3% confidence interval and is marginally significant. The average responsealso increased in graph four, from 3.27 to 3.44. Given the distribution of responses, this changeonly has an 88.8% confidence interval and therefore is not a significant difference. In general, theparticipants felt it was more important to know how much electricity they used, rather than thesource of that electricity.
31
Importance of Knowing Electricity Source
0
10
20
30
40
1 2 3 4 5Importance
Per
cen
t Before
After
Graph 11
Graph 12
Behaviors
The next series of questions related to participants’ behaviors. In general, these changed verylittle. For example, one question asked participants if they were more likely to turn up the heat orput on warmer clothing if they were cold. The majority of those surveyed before the presentationanswered clothing (80.2%). This number only increased to 82.5% after. The presentation seemsto have had minimal immediate effect on that behavior. However, the survey took place in May,beyond the point when most people are either turning up their heat or putting on warmer clothing,so it could be that respondents were referencing past behavior.
Three questions considered the frequency of behaviors, specifically how often participants turn offlights, turn the heat down, and turn off a computer. The majority of participants answered on theextremes; always or never. Overall, the behaviors changed very little between before and afterresults. In some cases, such as turning lights off when leaving a room, we were surprised to findthat less people did so after: 40.1% compared to 51.6% before. The question that displayed the
Importance of Knowing Electricity Use
0
10
20
30
40
50
1 2 3 4 5Importance
Per
cen
t Before
After
32
most positive results related to turning off a computer more often. The responses for ‘always’increased from 24.9% to 29.7%. The minimal behavioral changes could be the result of thedifficulty of measuring and influencing such changes. Compared to knowledge or attitudes,behaviors proved the hardest category to affect with just a 10-minute presentation.
Trends
Analyzing basic demographic information, other trends emerged. We are interested incontinuing presentations in the future. Therefore, we analyzed which groups showed the mostpotential for benefiting from the presentation. We compared results for those living off campusversus those living in dorms. Graph 13 compares these two categories for the behavioral questionthat demonstrated our intended outcome: turning off a computer.
Graph 13
Percent of Dorm and Off Campus Participants Responses to Question 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
Always Usually Sometimes Occasionally Never
Per
cen
t
Dorms
Off Campus
Question:1. Do you turn off a computer (not including sleep mode) when you won't be using it for more than 30 minutes?
This graph clearly displays that those who live in dorms are more likely to leave computers oncontinuously. A possible reason for this may be that they are not directly responsible forpaying a utility bill. These results suggest that students living in dorms could benefit more from thepresentation than those off campus who are already more likely to conserve energy, at least in thisspecific manner. Although frequency of turning off a computer is correlated with where theparticipant lives, other influential factors could include age, knowledge, or financial responsibilities.
Conclusion
Overall, the survey demonstrated that aspects of the education presentation were successful.Some areas, including knowledge and attitudes, displayed notable changes. Self reportedbehaviors, however, revealed minimal changes. One reason for this is that knowledge andattitudes may be more easily altered than behaviors, which are habitual and difficult to changedespite new knowledge. In addition, the presentation focused primarily on sharing knowledge,while suggestions for energy saving behavioral changes featured a less prominent role. Giventhere was less new information provided for behaviors, it would be expected that fewer behavioralchanges would result.
33
Comparing off-campus to dormitory residents strengthens our recommendation for a continuationof the education campaign. According to the on-campus responses, it is precisely these newstudents that could benefit the most from the presentation. This is also a prime target groupbecause their time at the University of Oregon is just beginning, allowing for years of futureconservation.
34
Wind Power CampaignGoals
The central goal of the wind power campaign is to displace environmentally detrimental energy
sources used by the University by purchasing renewable wind energy for campus.Although conservation is a priority, purchasing wind power not only offsets the impact of currentsources, but also provides an example for the rest of the community.
If the entire campus purchased 10% wind energy, the extra charge would be $6,300 a month –costing each student approximately $4 a year. Although this cost is minimal, we propose startingby converting the Erb Memorial Union, which consumed 2.3 million kWh in 2003, to 100%wind power. This purchase would cost an extra $3,200 a month, or $38,400 a year. At currentenrollment, that would be an additional $1.98 per student for the entire year. The EMU is a goodcandidate for alternative energy because it is a huge consumer, representing about 5% of the totalUniversity of Oregon electric use. In addition, it is a prominent building in the center of campus andis the most widely used student building at the University.
Methodology
To accomplish this objective, the EMU boardmust first choose to include wind power as partof the EMU budget and then ask theAssociated Students of the University ofOregon (ASUO) Senate to pass this budgetwith an increase in student fees to support theextra cost. On May 26, 2004, we presentedour proposal to the ASUO Senate. We willgive additional presentations to the EMU boardand the ASUO Senate a second time, duringthe 2004/2005 academic year when the2005/2006 budget is up for consideration.
Discussion
Survey results, displayed in graph 14, demonstrate that wind power is highly supported oncampus. 88% of those questioned before the presentation supported the idea of wind power oncampus, while 94% supported it after the presentation. Of those who took the survey beforeseeing the presentation, 73% supported this idea even if it would cost more, while 51% supportedraising student fees to cover that cost. Of those who took the survey after seeing the presentation,77.4% supported the idea at an extra cost, while 61% agreed to raise student fees. Of those whodisagreed with an increase in student fees, 88% before and 89% after supported the idea if theincrease were less than $5 a year.
35
Percent of Respondants Who Said Yes to Wind Power
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
1 2 3 4
Question (See Below)
Per
cen
t
Before
After
Graph 14
Questions:1. Should the University invest in wind energy?2. Even if it cost more?3. Even if student fees were raised to support the cost?4. (If disagreed with raising student fees) If student fees were increased less than 5 dollars a year?
Conclusion
The University community strongly supports wind power on campus, and many are willing topay for it through their student fees. The EMU is a good option for this purchase because of itshigh use and prominent position on campus. The Campus Energy Team suggests that the EMUpurchase 100% renewable wind energy from EWEB by the 2005/2006 school year.Members of the energy team and others will work next year to get this passed.
36
DiscussionRecommendations
After reviewing the successes and limitations of the Campus Energy Project, we give four
recommendations for future improvements: continuation of research and education; theimplementation of wind power on campus; and persistent conservation measure investments.
Research
Continuing to research alternative energy sources available to our community such as wind,solar, and geothermal should be a priority. Energy production is a dynamic process and it isimperative to stay current on available technologies in the Pacific Northwest. This is essentialfor keeping the educational presentation up to date, as well as encouraging the University to investwisely.
Continuing Education
Continuing an educational awareness campaign that focuses on campus energy issues is a
fundamental step in reducing the University’s ecological footprint. Educating incomingstudents is of particular importance, as our survey results show that dorm students’ attitudes andbehaviors towards energy use were less conscientious than their off-campus peers. Wespecifically recommend giving a similar PowerPoint presentation at incoming student andintroductory dorm meetings – informing new students of the issues early on. The Viragepresentation could also be included on the Duckware software to reach new members of thecampus community. This presentation could suggest ways for students to conserve energy,including: turning off computers, turning off lights in common areas when not in use, and turningdown heat rather than opening windows. While our survey results displayed a minimal impact onconservation behaviors, we feel that persistence in continuing education will help in this area.
Wind Power
We advocate the purchase of 100% wind power for the Erb Memorial Union. The majorityof students surveyed supported purchasing wind power by increasing student fees. For this reason,as well as those outlined in the wind campaign section of this report (see page 28), we recommenda 100% wind energy purchase for this building by the 2005/2006 academic year by raising studentfees. We further recommend that the University consider matching the student purchase byinvesting in more wind power in the future. We hope that the purchase of wind power for the EMUwill just be the beginning.
Conservation
Although we recognize the importance of alternative energy sources, continuing to promote basic
conservation practices both through physical applications and human effort is the mostimportant suggestion we propose. Reducing energy use decreases environmental degradation andreduces energy costs, an important issue considering the size of the University.
37
Continuing an educational campaign will help to promote conservation practices.Conclusion
Over the course of this academic year, the Campus Energy Team worked to compile an
informational overview of campus energy issues. After assembling relevant data into aneducational campaign, we worked at informing the University community about these topics.Although our goal of reaching 25% of the campus population was not met, we feel that by reachingover 4,000 people we have succeeded in educating a substantial portion of the community. Surveyresults support this claim. While answers to the survey questions show that behaviors did notchange significantly, attitudes and knowledge about energy issues did. Thus, a generalawareness of campus energy use has been created in those reached by this campaign; whichmay lead to more mindful behaviors in the future.
In addition, we feel that this year’s project successfully paves the way for futureimprovements in campus energy conservation and alternative energies. Although wind powerwill not be on campus in the next academic year, significant steps have been taken for ourrecommendation to be implemented in the 2005/2006 academic year. In addition, the data that wecompiled provides a wealth of information for future projects on campus, including a possiblecontinuation of similar educational campaigns.
The information presented in this report is essential knowledge that should be continuouslyupdated in an effort to reconnect students and staff with issues facing our environment as a resultof the University’s energy consumption. Our ecological footprint is a function of our attitudes andknowledge on how to use wisely and conserve whenever possible.
38
Bibliography
Bonneville Power Administration. January 12, 2004. <http://www.bpa.gov>
“Central Power Station.” Facilities Services. January 22, 2004. <http://facilities .uoregon.edu/cps/>
“Columbia Generating System.” Energy Northwest. January 22, 2004. <http://www.energy-northwest.com/gen/cgs/>
"Comprehensive Environmental Policy." University of Oregon Policy Statement; 4.100Environment- General. 1 July. 1997. 22 Jan. 2004. <http://www.uoregon.edu/%7Erecycle/Pol_Compre.htm>.
Cunningham, William P, ed. “Wind Energy.” Environmental Encyclopedia. 1998 Ed.
Energy Information Administration. US Department of Energy. February- March 10, 2004.<http://www.eia.doe.gov>
Energy Studies in Building Laboratory. Campus Energy. 3 Feb. 2004. University of Oregon. 20Jan. 2004. <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Eesbl/esbl_facilities_ services.php>.
Eugene Water and Electric Board. January 13-March 10, 2004. <http://www.eweb.org>
Eugene Water and Electric Board. January 2004. Team Meeting with: Femal, John; Brian Hawley,and Jim Maloney.
Gipe, Paul. Wind Energy Comes of Age. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1995.
Hart, Sol, Brandon Rhodes, & Danielle Donahue. The Average Ecological Footprint of Universityof Oregon Dorm Residents. Fall 2003. Campus Environmental Sustainability: Assessmentand Action. 15 Jan. 2004. <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/%7Ereppe/ENVS411/EcologicalFootprint.doc>.
Institute for Energy and Environmental Research. January 27, 2004. <http://www.ieer.org>
Kline, Jeff. Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory Research Associate. Personal Interview.January 2004.
Lillis Business Complex Offers Lessons in Sustainability. Lundquist College of Business. 26January 2004 <http://lcb.uoregon.edu/ribboncutting/sustain.html>
Maloney, Jim. Personal Interview. Eugene Water and Electric Board Energy Resource ProjectManager, January 20, 2004
39
Mitchell, John, Personal interview. 21 Jan 2004.
National Wind Coordination Committee. Avian Collisions with Wind Turbines: A Summary ofExisting Studies and Comparisons of Avian Collision Mortality in the United States. 2001.
Official Energy Statistics from the U.S. Government. 3 Feb 2004. Energy Information Administration, Department of Energy. <http://www.eia.doe.gov/>.
“Pacific Salmon and Wildlife: Ecological Contexts, Relationships, and Implications forManagement.” Pacific Salmon and Wildlife. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.March 10, 2004. <http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/salmonwild/>
Projects. Energy Studies in Buildings Laboratory. 3 February 2004 <http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~esbl>
Ruddick, Josh. University of Oregon Utilities Analyst. Personal Interview. January 2004.
University of Oregon. March 2004. <www.uoregon.edu>
“Yucca Mountain Nuclear Waste Repository.” Citizen Alert. August 23, 2003. January 22, 2004.<http://www.citizenalert.org/yucca/index.html>
“Yucca Mountain Project.” Office of Civilian Radioactive Waste Management. January 27, 2004.<http://www.ocrwm.doe.gov/ymp/index.shtml>
